KRISHNA PADA SAMANTA Vs. JUGAL KISHORE MONDAL
LAWS(CAL)-1996-6-45
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on June 28,1996

Krishna Pada Samanta Appellant
VERSUS
Jugal Kishore Mondal Respondents




JUDGEMENT

Basudev Panigrahi, J. - (1.)This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Sub -ordinate Judge, 3rd Court, Howrah in Title Appeal No. 90 of 1980 whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif, Uluberia in T.S. 35 of 1980, original suit No. 340/1/75 was confirmed. The facts of this case leading to the instant appeal are stated as follows:
(2.)It is, inter alia, stated in the plaint that the Defendant No. 1 and his brother who was the proforma Defendant executed a kabuliot on 2nd Baisakh 1370 B.S. for a period of 9 years in favour of the father of Plaintiffs, namely, Debendra Nath Mondal for raising a Bettle Vine measuring 23 decimals of land out of which 12 decimal of land partaining to plot No. 207 and 11 decimals of lands to plot No. 208 in Mouza Antila, P.S. Bagnan, District Howrah. The annual fee was fixed at Rs. 90/ -. The Kabuliot was executed by Defendant No. 1 and his brother for construction of a 'pan boroj' with betel plants numbering 31 gachi in plot Nos. 207 and 208. The Plaintiffs' father Debendra Nath Mondal was owning Sthitiban Raiyati rights over the disputed plots. The Defendants were termed as 'licensees' under him and separate receipts were granted to them. Out of the said land the Defendant No. 1 used to possess the eastern portion, whereas the proforma Defendant used to possess the other 1/2 from the western portion. Immediately after expiry of the period when the Plaintiffs issued notice against the Defendants to vacate the suit land after revoking their lisence and surrender possession on expiry of 30 days from the d.ate of notice; the Defendant No. 1 is said to have not vacated the suit premises. On the other hand, the proforma Defendant had surrendered the western portion of the land along with Bettal Vine to the Plaintiff's father and subsequently executed a confirmatory deed of surrender in favour of the Plaintiffs on January 29, 1975.
(3.)The Defendant No. 1 has contested the suit, inter alia, stating in his written statement that he and the proforma Defendant Balaram Samanta were the under -rayats in respect of the suit land by virtue of an unilateral lease deed dated July 29, 1945 corresponding to 13th Sravan 1352 B.S. at an annual rental of Rs. 37.50 p. payable according to the Bengali calendar. Thereafter, the annual rent was increased to Rs. 75.00 per year commencing from 1361 B.S. to 1369 B.S. and lastly, it was further increased to Rs. 90.00 from Baisakh 1370 B.S. and every occasion by virtue of unilateral kubaliats. The Defendant No. 1 and his brother Baiaram Samanta had raised a little vine on the suit premises with their own money and they have been in possession continuously since 1352 B.S. Thus they acquired good title in the suit land at the advent of West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 and the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. By virtue of the provisions of the aforementioned Acts the Defendant No. 1 became an absolute owner and has acquired an indefeasible right directly as a tenant under the State. In otherwords his right was transformed from under rayat to a rayat after the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act came into force. Whatever the interest the Plaintiffs' father Debendra Nath Mondal had, that became vested in the State of West Bengal after the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act came into force. He could at best claim compensation from the State Government but in no circumstance can claim ownership over the suit premises.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.